The Senate approved a historic change in the filibuster rule last night after seven weeks of angry debate. It voted 56 to 27 to reduce the number of senators needed to cut off a filibuster from two-thirds of those present and voting to a permanent "constitutional" threefifths (60 senators).

Can someone get this to Rush and Hannity. This is a clip off of the archives of the Washington Post, if anyone wants to buy the whole article for $3.95 have at it.

To institute a rule change it was supposed to take 67 votes at the time which was the filibuster rule. But they Democrats who were a 60 vote plus majority at the time. Also, 17 Senators didn't vote at all on such an important issue.

Can anyone get a roll call vote looked up and see who opposed, I'm sure Goldwater, Helms, and Allen from Alabama opposed. I'm sure Byrd, Kennedy, Biden, Inoway, and Leahy voted yes. Don't know who the 17 Senators who took a dive that allowed 2/3 approval.

The RATS will spin this as justifying their demand that even a vote for a Federal Judicial Nomination should require 60 votes to confirm. Nevertheless, it was a good find to show how they will change the rules anytime they are inconvenienced.

3
posted on 05/18/2005 9:33:37 PM PDT
by Enterprise
(Coming soon from Newsweek: "Fallujah - we had to destroy it in order to save it.")

The Democratic Party scored significant gains in the congressional elections of 1974. The large numbers of new Democrats elected to the Senate and the House of Representatives were in a reformist mood, and one of the things they wanted to reform was Congress itself.

In 1975 in the Senate, the number of votes required to cloture a filibuster was reduced from 2/3 to 3/5, from 67 votes to 60 votes if all senators were present and voting. It was believed that this lowered number of votes required for cloture would make it more difficult to sustain a filibuster in future debates, and the end result would be the Senate would have an "easier time" enacting civil rights bills.

This new cloture rule did not reduce the use of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate, however. In fact, if anything, it appeared to make the filibuster a more acceptable legislative weapon, even for non-southerners. Groups of senators began to filibuster non-civil rights bills, thus requiring the Senate leadership to produce a 3/5 vote or give up on the particular bill in question. Senators found filibusters to be a particularly effective way to kill bills they opposed late in the legislative session when there was little time remaining and the leadership was anxious to enact more important bills prior to adjournment.

Michael Medved today: "Dingey Harry was bloviating today about Jefferson and Washington chatting over coffee. Unbelievable silly story, but the real joke is that COFFEE WASN'T SERVED IN THE CONTINENTAL US until a hundred years later." (..rough paraphrase).

I don't know if Jefferson and Washington ever chatted over coffee, but coffee-drinking had become popular in Europe well before their time: Charles Dickens talks about Puritans in 17th-century England having their own coffee-houses, and coffee-drinking caught on in Vienna after the Turkish siege of 1683 (supposedly the Viennese found the coffee beans left behind by the Turks). I think coffee was one of the alternatives Americans turned to when they decided to boycott tea (because of the British tax on tea).

I am looking for the actual vote and so far found a few of the usual suspects on the wrong side:

In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: "We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there." Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed. Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton, concluded that the Senate Rule requiring a super-majority vote to change the rule is "plainly unconstitutional."

it was obviously a majority of the Whole Senate that was obviously necessary-----51 votes

This site concurs. "In 1975, Walter Mondale (Democrat-Minnesota) and James Pearson (Republican-Kansas) led the fight for a three-fifth's cloture rule using the "Constitutional option," meaning that they believed that debate over the Mondale-Pearson proposal could be brought to an end by a simple majority vote. Other Senators believed that debate over this cloture rule proposal could only be brought to an end by satisfying the cloture rule in effect from previous Senates: by winning the support of two-thirds of the Senate.

Senator Javits moved to "table" [defeat] Senator Mike Mansfield's point of order against the Mondale-Pearson cloture proposal because it was "self-executing" by demanding an immediate vote without satisfying the two-thirds cloture rule. Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, acting as presiding officer of the Senate, issued a ruling that if a majority of the Senate voted for Senator Javits's "tabling motion," the Senate could proceed immediately to a vote on the Mondale-Pearson cloture rule proposal. The Senate upheld the Mondale-Pearson "Constitutional option" on three separate occasions during the period from February 1975 through March 1975. After more parliamentary maneuvering, the Senate enacted the three-fifths cloture rule by a vote of 56 to 27 on March 7, 1975."

In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: "We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there." Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed. Nearly a decade ago, Lloyd Cutler, the former White House Counsel to Presidents Carter and Clinton, concluded that the Senate Rule requiring a super-majority vote to change the rule is "plainly unconstitutional.""

23
posted on 05/18/2005 10:46:27 PM PDT
by cookcounty
("We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts" ---Abe Lincoln, 1858.)

"The Senate approved a historic change in the filibuster rule last night after seven weeks of angry debate. It voted 56 to 27 to reduce the number of senators needed to cut off a filibuster from two-thirds of those present and voting to a permanent "constitutional" three-fifths (60 senators)."

This change was even more extreme than it seems at first glance... it did not merely change the cloture threshold from 67 to 60... it changed it from a RELATIVE PERCENTAGE to an ABSOLUTE PERSENTAGE!

Note the phrase "two-thirds of those present and voting". That meant that cloture could be voted by as few as 34 Senators... two-thirds of the official Senate Quorum of 51 Senators!!! They didn't LOWER THE BAR... they RAISED IT!

The Washington Post was spinning the truth even in 1975. This article should read:

"The Senate approved a historic change in the filibuster rule last night after seven weeks of angry debate. It voted 56 to 27 to INCREASE the number of senators needed to cut off a filibuster from two-thirds of those present and voting, (34 senators of the Senate's quorum of 51), to a permanent "constitutional" three-fifths (60 senators)."

So sorry but you have the wrong example. Apparently what happened was that the rule was changed by a majority vote and then the Senate went back and fixed it up with a revote to get the two-third vote.

I don't think their is enough good will left in the Senate to do that this time.

And for those freepers who have been screaming for a "real filibuster" this is an important point as to why it hasn't happened since 1975.

The minority party only needs to keep one person in the Senate now, whereas the majority party needs to keep at least 50 present during a filibuster. That's definitely a greater hurdle for the majority party.

With the old rules, the minority party always had to keep at least 2/3 of members present, which at 50 means at least 26 to keep it from passing. That represents a greater hardship. In addition, it allowed the majority party to have fewer people there and still maintain a quorum.

You're right on the money...that's the part that often gets overlooked. It means the margin between quorum and overrule is slim...allowing dissenters to walk out to avoid cloture.

The more philosophical import of this is that it provides DISincentive to continuing discussion and debate. Our Senate is supposed to be deliberative, but this rule change made it a smart move to leave the Senate to get your way.

With the old rules, the minority party always had to keep at least 2/3 of members present, which at 50 means at least 26 to keep it from passing.

You may misunderstand the cloture process, which is the general subject of the topic article. The cloture vote is scheduled at a time certain. It is impossible to "spring it" using surprise. Actually, all votes in the Senate are scheduled using either unanimous consent or cloture.

A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.

No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave.

If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate.

Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.